How to Beat a GM What Every Amateur Should Know About Playing a Higher-Rated Opponent
By Chris Seck
How to Beat a GM What Every Amateur Should Know About Playing a Higher-Rated Opponent By Chris Seck © 2007, All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents
Introduction … Chapter 1 Why GMs Usually Beat Amateurs … Chapter 2 The Power of Belief … Chapter 3 Win by Losing … Chapter 4 Learn to Tolerate Difficult Positions … Chapter 5 Pick an Amateur-Friendly Opening … Chapter 6 Make Simultaneous Games Work for You … Chapter 7 Exploit the Peculiarities of Internet Chess … Chapter 8 Study Your Opponent’s Games … Chapter 9 Sometimes, You Get Underestimated … Chapter 10 How to Beat Your Computer … Epilogue …
3
4 7 17 22 24 28 32 35 39 42 45 50
Introduction When I was 12 and a Class D player, I played in a simultaneous exhibition against the legendary ex-world champion Anatoly Karpov. Although the odds were heavily stacked against me, I’ve always felt that the game ended embarrassingly early:
GM Anatoly Karpov - Chris Seck Singapore, 1997 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.O-O-O Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.h5 Re8 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.e5 dxe5 17.Ne6 Qc8 18.Nxg7 Kxg7 19.Bg5 1-0
Years passed. As a student, I worked hard at my chess. I read a lot of chess books and my playing strength slowly improved until my rating hit a plateau: USCF 1800. From that point onwards, I would occasionally manage to accidentally beat an expert, or even a low-level master. But against GMs, I lost 100% of my games, without even a single draw. Here’s one of my more notable masterpieces—from the GM’s perspective, that is.
GM Saidali Iuldachev - Chris Seck Singapore, 2001 1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.Ngf3 Bd6 5.g3 Ne7 6.Bg2 Nbc6 7.O-O O-O 8.Nh4 b6 9.f4 dxe4 10.dxe4 Ba6 11.Re1 Rc8 12.c3 e5 13.f5 c4 14.f6 gxf6 15.Bh3 Bc5+ 16.Kh1 Rc7 17.Rf1 Bc8 18.Bxc8 Qxc8 19.Rxf6 b5 20.Qh5 Ng6 21.Ndf3 Qh3 22.Ng5 1-0 To be sure, at the scholastic level, being an 1800 player was enough to win a couple of minor school tournaments. I was elected president of my high school chess club, and my scholastic achievements eventually helped me get into Stanford University. But I remained dissatisfied. My rating remained stuck at the 1800-1900 plateau, and I knew no way to improve further. Moreover, my lifelong ambition remained unfulfilled: I wanted to beat a GM. Sure, it’s good to beat other amateurs, but wouldn’t it be nice to beat a GM—someone who is really good at the game? So, I read more chess books. But while the existing chess literature featured plenty of GM vs. GM games, they rarely showed GM vs. amateur games. None of them offered practical advice on how a weaker player can hope to prevail against a stronger one. Moreover, the few published GM vs. amateur games tended to be one-sided matches where the amateur would voluntarily make a couple of beginner’s mistakes and concede the game after a token positional struggle. Quite simply, it wasn’t the stuff that I was looking for. Therefore, I decided to design my own personal program to beat GMs. I visited open tournaments and watched first round matches between top-seeded GMs and untitled players. I talked to class players and experts who had beaten GMs before, and they shared their games with me. I compiled a collection of hundreds of GM vs. amateur games and studied them in detail. I observed the ways in which GM vs. GM games were different from GM vs. amateur games. In the end, I came up with three general observations:
4
Insight 1: GMs usually dictate the pace of the games Regardless of the result of the game, I found that it was almost always the GM who played aggressive moves early and more often. Inevitably, due to his superior opening knowledge and tactical skills, the GM would often have forced the amateur on the defensive within the first 20 moves of the game. On the occasions that the amateurs managed to win or draw, it was usually because the GM made a mistake that allowed unnecessary complications. Most amateur wins were due to tactical shots in the middlegame, rather than through positional play or in the endgame. Don’t get me wrong—positional and endgame skills are important. It’s just that when you’re facing tough GM opponents, they usually aren’t enough by themselves to win.
Insight 2: Shorter time controls favor amateurs. I found that percentage-wise, amateurs score far better in blitz and rapid games than in longer time controls. The shorter the game, the greater the chances of an upset. Contrary to popular perception, the true advantage of playing blitz is not that the GM is significantly more likely to blunder (the Dutch psychologist Adrian de Groot refuted that claim in a study), but that the subjective element of time (and the importance of moving quickly) becomes a larger factor. An amateur may lack the GM’s knowledge, but he can easily acquire a quick hand—a very useful skill in blitz. Moreover, although GMs are often good at playing chess at faster time controls, their comparative advantage lies in their ability to play games that last 4-5 hours because that’s how they became GMs in the first place. But for amateurs, who usually practice by playing blitz, the opposite is true since they tend to be comparatively better at faster time controls.
Insight 3: Amateur-GM games rarely feature the absolute main lines. At top-level tournaments such as Linares and Corus, GMs overwhelmingly play the main lines against each other—the Najdorf Sicilian, the Semi-Slav Meran, etc. Some of those lines are analyzed 20 moves deep, and most require enormous home preparation. Against amateurs, however, GMs almost never play the main lines because they don’t want to waste their best opening ideas on amateurs. Usually, a GM would play uncommon lines to get his opponent out of the “book” and think for himself. As a result, amateurs almost always face complex, unfamiliar positions against GMs. § I don’t consider my games to be of high quality—even my best wins against GMs are riddled with my inaccuracies and blunders. I prefer to think my anti-GM tactics as a sort of guerilla warfare—where the weaker side employs unconventional tactics to fight a much larger, bettertrained opponent.
5
It took a long time for me to figure out all the things that you’re about to learn. But I’m glad I did, because although my last published USCF rating was in the 1800s, I can now log on to the Internet Chess Club, confident of beating at least one IM or GM during almost every session. But on the other hand, I know for a fact that I probably never will become a GM myself. It takes more to become a GM than to beat one, and my chess ambitions are pretty much limited to the latter. Against GMs, I still lose most of the time since I’m technically the weaker player, but I take the losses in my stride. As an amateur, I have the freedom to lose as many times as need be, confident in the knowledge that it only takes one victory to make my day. For GMs, the opposite is true—they win almost all the time, but it usually only takes one bad loss or draw to spoil their day. GMs beat amateurs because of their superior playing strength. That does not mean amateurs have no chance. Because each player plays by the same rules and has only his brain as a guide, it is often possible for an amateur to find enough right moves, or for a GM to make enough errors, to create an upset. The FIDE handbook states that a 500-point difference between an amateur and a GM translates into a mere 4% chance of the amateur winning. But there are various factors that allow determined amateur players to considerably increase their immediate odds. This book is about recognizing that any amateur versus GM match is an asymmetrical fight—and using the available imbalances to increase your chances. Now, let’s have some fun!
6
Chapter 1: Why GMs Usually Beat Amateurs Before you sit down to play GMs, it pays to consider the reasons why they are higher-rated than you. As Sun Tzu said, “Know thy enemy, know thyself; a thousand battles, a thousand victories." It is only by recognizing your opponent’s strengths that you, as an amateur may find ways, to ameliorate them—thereby maximizing your chances. Of course, specific information on your GM opponent is useful. But generally speaking, if you don’t know the GM personally, chances are that he possesses the following 7 advantages, which the average amateur lacks:
Advantage 1 Advantage 2 Advantage 3 Advantage 4 Advantage 5 Advantage 6 Advantage 7
A professional stake in the game’s outcome Years of sophisticated training techniques Superior tactical sight and knowledge of patterns Well-worked out opening repertoire Vast knowledge of typical middlegame themes Superior endgame technique Previous experience with vast majority of positions
A serious amateur who wants to play a GM would do well to think about how to reduce the impact of these factors. Let us take a look at them.
Advantage 1: A professional stake in the game’s outcome GMs have reputations to protect. The vast majority of them are Professional players who make their livelihood from chess—whether it is prize money, coaching students, or writing books and articles. Their economic well-being depends heavily on their ability to win tournaments and maintain high ratings. In contrast, most amateurs play chess for recreation; they see chess as a small part of a big life that includes commitments to work, school, and relationships. When an amateur loses a game to a GM, nothing bad happens. But when a GM loses (or concedes a draw) to an amateur—particularly a young one—the aftermath can be particularly traumatic: The happy amateur would replay the game endless times to his friends. The spectators watching the game break out in applause for the amateur’s achievement. Sometimes, newspapers and TV media even publicize the sensational upset. During the first round of a blitz tournament in the 1999 London Mind Sports Olympiad, the famous GM John Nunn played against an 8-year old boy named David Howell. Had Nunn won, the game would have long been forgotten as a routine firstround victory. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. Little David Howell scored a sensational upset and the media frenzy was enormous. Even in faraway Singapore—halfway across the globe—the local newspaper gave generous coverage of the little boy’s victory (and his illustrious opponent’s embarrassment). Nobody reported that GM Nunn went on to win his next five games while Howell lost his next two. To the outside world, all that mattered was that a GM had been beaten by a little boy.
7
While GMs may dislike losing to other GMs, they view losing to amateurs with utmost hate, disgust, revulsion, and abhorrence—and will do anything within their chessplaying powers to avoid conceding losses or draws. As such, whenever a GM faces an amateur, it is clear that he has greater motivation to win— his reputation and livelihood depend on it. Therefore, the GM puts more effort into choosing better moves, which is why he usually wins. Advantage 2: Years of sophisticated training techniques Regardless of nationality, any GM would have spent thousands of hours being coached and playing practice games. Many GMs have teams of personal trainers to analyze their games to weed out mistakes. Some GMs have received special training ever since they were young. There is plenty of literature surrounding the legendary Soviet School of Chess and its “secret training methods.” But few Westerners know that even Asian countries like India, China, and Vietnam also have serious chess schools. Take China for example. In his book, The Chinese School of Chess, China’s national coach IM Liu Wenzhe outlined the training methods used to prepare 20-year-old Xie Jun (then rated about 2450) for the 1991 Women’s World Championship. They included: 190 days worth of chess training, including 480 hours worth of training games. Three GMs preparing Xie Jun’s openings for her—including the black sides of the Ruy Lopez, the Scotch Game, the King’s Indian, the Reti Opening, and the English. 3. A detailed training timetable where Xie Jun would wake up at 6:30am, train the whole day, and sleep at 10:15pm. The training included not just opening study and practice games, but also vigorous physical exercise and psychological conditioning. At the GM level, such training and preparation is common. Amateurs, on the other hand, tend to train using far simpler methods (and for far fewer hours). Compared to GMs, many of whom have lived and breathed chess for many years, the vast majority of amateurs see chess as a mere hobby that must be balanced against other priorities like work and family. Moreover, amateurs generally lack the time or inclination to study chess for 190 straight days—let alone for many years at a stretch. Advantage 3: Superior tactical sight and knowledge of patterns Much of the gap in playing strength between GMs and amateurs can be attributed to tactical sight. As author Michael De La Maza writes in Rapid Chess Improvement, an amateur’s strength “is limited first and foremost by a lack of tactical ability.” The GM invariably exploits almost every tactical blunder the amateur makes, even while making virtually none himself. His familiarity with tactical patterns — checkmates, forks, pins, skewers, double attacks, or any combination of the above—is, as a rule, far superior to the amateur’s. The late Dutch chess master Adriaan de Groot once theorized that a chess player’s skill was correlated with his ability to readily recognize “pattern chunks” on the chessboard. De Groot 8
suggested that grandmasters know tens of thousands of such chunks, which allows them to recognize the functional relationships between the pieces — patterns that amateurs are often unfamiliar with. I once learnt about a common pattern chunk the hard way:
GM Dmitry Gurevich - Chris Seck Simultaneous Exhibition Whitewater, 1998
After surviving a difficult middlegame, I had achieved a drawn position as Black. To draw, all I needed to do was to shuffle my king between h7 and g7. Even if the White King could make it to b6, the position would still be drawn because it would have no pawn cover from my rook checks. After a long think, I decided to bring my king to the center to win the White a-pawn. 45. Kf7?? And a smiling Gurevich instantly responded: 46. Rh8! Black resigns Black loses the rook after 46…Rxa7 47.Rh7+, and any other move allows the a-pawn to queen. But the most revealing moment came after the game, when I told my opponent: “That was a cool trick.” To which he replied, “It was a typical tactical pattern. You learn it with experience.” Gurevich, like all other GMs, had seen this pattern countless times, which was why he was able to play the winning move on pure instinct. As an amateur, I was much less familiar with the pattern and therefore played a bad move, even though I spent much more time pondering over it. Often, GMs win precisely because their familiarity with such tactical patterns—accumulated over years of chess playing—is so much greater than that of the amateurs.
9
Advantage 4: Well-worked out opening repertoire Although GMs commonly say that the opening is about understanding “ideas” and “schemes” rather than memorizing variations, they often say this because they already possess a lot of pre-existing opening knowledge. All openings require some degree of memorization, especially the sharper ones. GMs study their openings in great detail. As my former coach IM Jovan Petronic once told me: “Memorizing this book [ECO] is good enough to reach IM level. But to become a GM, you need to not just read this stuff, but also to come up with some new ideas of your own.” In contrast, most amateurs have wide gaps in their opening repertoires, particularly as Black. As a result, GMs often get advantages in the opening, and sometimes win games straight out of it. As an example, one of my shortest losses was the following game, played against the late GM Alex Wojtkiewicz. It is a good illustration of how easily a GM can beat an amateur who is unfamiliar with the opening.
GM Alex Wojtkiewicz - Chris Seck Simultaneous Exhibiton Whitewater, 1999
1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Bg5 Bg7 7.Bb5+!?
Although I had played the Dragon many times, I had never seen the Bb5+ variation before. Most of my amateur opponents would play the more popular Yugoslav Attack with f3, Be3, and Qd2 against me. With little idea on how to deal with this unfamiliar opening variation, I tried playing some natural-looking moves.
7. ... Bd7 8. Qe2 Nc6 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. O-O-O
10
10. ... O-O?? But this normal-looking move, which leaves the Black queen in the path of the d1-rook, is a serious mistake. I was not alert to the hidden threat behind my opponent’s last move. Either 10…Qa5 or 10…Qc7 was necessary. Why then did I castle? It appeared to be a normal-looking move. And in an unfamiliar opening position, normal-looking moves are sometimes bad. 11. e5! With threats developing on the d-file, I realized that 11…dxe5 12.Nxc6 followed by the capture of the e5 pawn would give White a material advantage. Nevertheless, the move I played was far worse because it lost a piece. 11. ... Qa5?? 12. Nb3! Black resigns If 12…Qxe5, then 13.Qxe5 dxe5 14.Bxf6 Bh6+ 15.Kb1! wins a piece.
Advantage 5: Vast knowledge of typical middlegame themes In his classic book Think like a Grandmaster, GM Alexander Kotov wrote that GMs know “where to place their pieces” in typical middlegame positions. As Chinese GM Wu Shaobin once told me, “Anybody can memorize a bunch of variations. But few players understand what to do with the middlegame positions that result once the opening is over.” As an example, I would like to borrow a game that GM Alex Yermolinsky showed the Stanford chess club: GM Alex Yermolinsky - FM John Bartholomew Las Vegas, 2003 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 b6 4.e4 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Bb7 7.f3 e6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2 O-O 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Qd2 a6 12.Rfd1 Rc8 13.Rac1 Qc7 14.a3 Qb8 15.Kh1 11
GM Yermolinsky wrote of this typical middlegame position: “It has been known for two decades that Black must transfer the bishop to c7.” In the resulting position, Black has the potential threat of d6-d5, unleashing the c7-bishop’s power on the long c7-h2 diagonal. In response, White usually defends his h2 pawn by playing Bg1. Then, Black could play Kh8 and Rg8, with the idea of an eventual g7-g5. 15. ... Rfd8? This natural-looking move is inaccurate. Black, a very promising junior at that time, was not experienced with this type of position. In response, GM Yermolinsky slowly improves his position, while Black cannot find an active plan. 16. Bf1 Bf8 17. b4 Qa8 18. Nb3 Bc6 19. Qf2 Rb8 20. Bf4
Facing increasing pressure in a difficult position, Black panicked and made an anti-positional move: 12
20. e5? Better was 20... Ne8, which would have kept everything defended. But Black didn’t want to make such a passive-looking move. 21. Be3 Rdc8 22. a4 And despite determined resistance, White went on to win a lengthy 63-move game.
Advantage 6: Superior endgame technique Generally speaking, the endgame is where the knowledge gap between GMs and amateurs is the greatest. As British chess author Tim Harding writes in Why You Lose at Chess: “It is in the ending that young players and computers, in particular, are at their weakest. There is less scope for inspired guessing in the endgame.” Once there’re few pieces left on the board, the creative possibilities of the position tend to diminish. As a result, endgames tend to be won by the player who has greater experience and theoretical knowledge. This tends to favor the GM, because most amateurs are poor endgame players and do not study them enough. In the November 1998 issue of Chess Life, GM Pal Benko writes: “Frequently I observe lower-rated players in open tournaments handling the openings quite well. But after reaching decent endgames, they miss relatively simple moves and get into trouble.” As an example, Benko cites the following game:
GM Arnold Denker - Elina Groberman Orlando, 1997
White has just moved his rook to e4. According to Benko, Black can enter a drawn pawn endgame by exchanging rooks: 76…Rxe4 77.Kxe4 Ke6! 76. Ra5 (?) 77. Kf4 Rb5
13
Benko mentions that Black could again reach a drawn position with 77…g5+ 78.hxg5 Kg6!
A few moves later, the game reached the following position:
Here, Benko writes that Black can “easily draw by keeping her rook on the e-file.” 89. Ra7?? And Black resigned after 90.Rd8+ Kf7 because of 91.Rd7+ with a lost pawn endgame.
Advantage 7: Previous experience with vast majority of positions By the time they become GMs, most professional players would have played at least 500 games at classical time controls—not including countless private training matches and rapid games. Over the board, the GM would have analyzed, evaluated, and calculated tens of thousands of lines and would be familiar with most situations on the chessboard. The GM’s well-developed thinking habits often enable him to play faster—and score quick wins or draws as needed. An example of this would be Game 7 of the 2000 World Chess Championship between Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik. Kasparov, who was one point behind and needed to win, was edged into one of the shortest draws of his career:
GM Garry Kasparov - GM Vladimir Kramnik London, 2000 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g3 Qc7 7.Qd3 Nc6 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.g2 e5 10.O-O Be6 11.Na4 ½-½ 14
Final position after 11.Na4 According to The New York Times, Kasparov had spent almost 38 minutes to get to this position, while Kramnik spent only 9. The chess world was shocked. How did Kramnik draw so easily against the world champion? It turned out that Kramnik had already seen many similar positions in previous play. In particular, he recognized the position to be similar to a game he played when he was just twelve:
GM Boris Alterman - Vladimir Kramnik Druskininkai, 1987 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.g3 Qc7 7.Qd3 Nc6 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.g2 Be7 10.O-O O-O 11.h3 e5
12.Be3 Be6 13.b3 Nd7 14.Ne4 h6 15.g4 Rad8 16 Qc3 Rfe8 17.Rad1 Nf8 18.Nc5 Bc8 19.Na4 Rxd1 20.Rxd1 Ng6 21.Bb6 Qb8 22.e3 Be6 23.Qd3 Qc8 24.Nc5 Bxc5 25.Bxc5 15
Nh4 26.Be4 h5 27.f3 g6 28.Kf2 f5 29.gxf5 gxf5 30.Rg1+ Kf7 31.Qc3 Ng6 32.Bc2 Qd8 33.Qe1 Qh4+ 34.Rg3 Rg8 35.Kg2 f4 0-1 Amateurs, in contrast, often lack that same previous experience with positions. Therefore, they spend more time than GMs, but make worse moves.
§ With all these advantages that GMs possess, what chance remains for the amateur? Is the fight destined to be one-sided? Fortunately, the answer is no. Amateurs can take a number of steps to increase their chances dramatically. The next chapters will show you what they are.
16
Chapter 2: The Power of Belief Maggie: She's tough. […] I can't get close enough to hit her. Frankie: You know why that is? Maggie: Why? Frankie: Cause she's a better fighter than you are, that's why. She's younger, she's stronger, and she's more experienced. Now, what are you gonna do about it? -Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby
§ As an amateur, your chess skills are bound to be far inferior to the GM’s in almost every way. Your tactical skills, opening knowledge, endgame technique, and virtually everything else— are weaker than the GM’s. But if you are to even stand even the slightest chance of surviving against a GM, you must first believe in yourself. If you enter the game with a loser’s mindset— hoping to play defensively and somehow not get thrashed—you will almost certainly lose the game. You must have faith that your calculations are good enough to guide your moves, no matter how high your opponent’s rating. You must believe that with enough inteligent guessing in unfamiliar positions, you can find enough good moves to hold your GM opponent to a draw—or beat him. There is a limit to how far self-belief alone can take you—it is not a substitute for creativity, imagination, or technique. Even with your best efforts, your play will never be perfect—you will make a lot of mistakes, even in the games that you do manage to win or draw. In my games against GMs, I have never played a single blunder-free game—not even in the games that I eventually won. But GMs are only humans, not machines. And sometimes, despite all the mistakes that you will make as an amateur, you might still get lucky and survive—even against a world-class player. After all, anything can happen in a blitz game.
GM Dmitry Jakovenko - Chris Seck Internet Chess Club, 2007 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 c6 3.g5 Bf5 4.d3 e6 5.c4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxg5 7.Kf1 Bxd2 8.Nxd2 Nd7 9.Ngf3 Qe7 10.Qb3 Nc5 11.Qa3 Nf6 12.Rc1 Na6 13.Qb3 O-O 14.h4 h6 15.Ne5 Ng4 16.Nxg4 Bxg4 17.Bf3 Bxf3 18.Nxf3 Qb4 19.Qc2 dxc4 20.dxc4 Rad8 21.Rg1 Kh8 22.a3 Qc5 23.b4 Qf5 24.Qc3 f6 25.Qe3 c5 26.b5 Nc7 27.Rg3 e5 28.Qxc5 Ne6 29.Qxa7 Qf4 30.Qe3 Qxe3 31.fxe3 Ra8 32.Rc3 Nc5 33.Rg4 Ra4 34.h5 Rfa8 35.Nh4 Rxa3 36.Rxa3 Rxa3 37.Nf5 Ne6 38.Kf2 Rc3 39.Nd6 b6 40.Rg1 Ng5 41.Ra1 Nh3+ 42.Kf3 Ng5+ 43.Kf2 Nh3+ 44.Kf1 Rxe3 45.Ra8+ Kh7 46.Ra7 Kg8 47.Nf5 Rc3 48.Rxg7+ Kf8 49.Rc7 Rc2 50.Nxh6 Nf4 51.Nf5 Nxh5 52.Rc6 Rc1+ 53.Kf2 Nf4 54.Rxf6+ Ke8 55.Rxb6 Kd7 56.Rc6 Rc2 57.Rd6+ Kc7 58.Rc6+ Kb7 59.Rf6 Rxe2+ 60.Kf3 Rc2 61.Rf7+ Kb6 62.Nd6 Kc5 63.Ne4+ Kb4 64. b6 Kb3 65.b7 Kb2 66.b8=Q+ Kc1 67.Qb3 Nd3 68.Qxc2+ Kxc2 69.Ke3 Kd1 70.Rf5 Kc2 71.Rxe5 Kb1 72.Rd5 Kb2 ½-½ (White ran out of time and Black has no material to mate) 17
I concede that the final position is objectively lost for me after I missed the best moves in the endgame—we were both in time trouble. But still, it is not often that an 1800-rated amateur can survive a difficult 72-move game against a 2700-rated Russian GM ranked 10th in the world. My point in sharing this game is not to blow my own horn, but to suggest that once in a while, a determined amateur can hold his own against a vastly superior opponent. In the following simul game, Black faced the former Hungarian champion and chess author IM Tibor Karolyi, who was also a trainer to world-class players such as Judit Polgar and Peter Leko. Rather than allow his respect for his renowned opponent to inhibit his play, Black played his best—and wound up winning.
IM Tibor Karolyi - Luke Leong Singapore, 2002
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. d5 d6 6. e4 e5!?
The normal move is 6…0-0. But seeing little harm in closing the position early, Black decides to do so. Closing the position is sometimes a good strategy during simultaneous games because they tend to prolong the length of the game, sometimes by several dozen moves— representing several dozen extra rounds for the IM to walk. At the same time, Black also quotes another master who suggests that it might be a better idea to play 6…Bxc3+ first to wreck White’s pawn structure and then 7…e5. 7. Nge2 Qe7 8. g4 Na6 9. a3 Bxc3+ 10. Nxc3 Nd7 The position is starting to look somewhat uncomfortable for the IM. Black writes: “This knight is heading for g6 via f8, where it will exert its influence over the f4 and h4 squares (should White push 11. h4 and Black reply 11. h5 with 12.g5 Ng6 to follow). Black simultaneously threatens 11.Qh4+, harassing the White king.” 11. Be3 h5 12. g5 h4 13. Rg1 18
Possibly a wasted move, because the threat of g6 is easily parried (Leong). A simple move like 13.Nb5, tying down the Black knight to a6, would have been better. IM Karolyi could then prepare to play b2-b4, with a comfortable game. 13. ... Nf8 14. b4 b6
15. Bd3?! IM Karolyi could have caused far more disturbance with 15.Qa4+, where 15…Qd7 16.Nb5! threatens to win the d6 pawn (Leong). Black would then have to move his king, after which White plays 17.f4, where 17…exf4 18.Bxf4 leads to an unpleasant position for Black. In response to 15.Qa4+, Black’s best response is probably 15…Kd8. But in all variations, he still loses the right to castle, and it would take a while to fortify his position. 15. ... Ng6 16. Ne2 Black writes: “The queen check is not so effective now, with the f4 square under Black's control and Black's king free to castle - 16.Qa4+?! Qd7 17.Nb5 0-0 and 18.f4 undermining Black's e5-d6c5 pawn chain is not possible.” 16. ... Bd7 17. Rb1 O-O In a closed position, Black prepares to play an eventual f5. It’s not easy for an IM to deal with complex strategic considerations like these when he has to play 25 people at once. 18. Kd2 Rab8 19. b5 Nc7 20. a4? This move doesn’t seem to have a purpose.
19
20. ... f5! 21. Qc2 Capturing the pawn either way (gxf6 or exf5) saddles the IM with a backward pawn on f3— an unpleasant defensive task. In the meantime, Black’s next moves are geared towards isolating White’s g5 pawn and reducing his avenues of counterplay. 21. ... f4 22. Bf2 a5 23. Nc3 Kf7 24. Rh1 h3 This move is fine. But Black could also have taken on g5 before playing h3: 24…Qxg5 25.Rbg1 Qh5 26.Be2 h3. Slowly, Black brings his rooks to the h-file, squeezes out the g5 pawn, and increases the pressure. 25. Rbg1 Rh8 26. Qd1 Rh5 27. Qf1 Rbh8 28. Nd1 Ne8 29. Be1 Rxg5 30. Rxg5 Qxg5 31. Rg1 Qd8 32. Nf2 Nf6 33. Be2 Rh5 34. Kd3 Qh8 35. Ng4
20
35. ... Nh4! A disciplined move. Black eschews the greedy 35…Nxg4 36.fxg4, which allows White to block the position with Bf3 on the next move. At that point, it would be unclear how Black would break through. 36. Bxh4 Rxh4 37. Nxf6 Kxf6 38. Qd1 Rh6 39. Qf1 Qe8 40. Qd1 Qh5 41. Qe1 Qh4 42. Qf1 Trading queens fails because Black would prepare to advance his g-pawn to g4, trade it off, and then plant his bishop on g4 with a won game. 42. ... Rg6 43. Rxg6+ Kxg6 44. Qg1+ Qg5? This move allows White to trade queens, leading to a bishop vs. bishop endgame that is almost impossible to win. Fritz 5 suggests the line 45…Qg2! 46.Qh4 Qxh2 47.Qe7 Qg1! 48.Qxd7 Qe3+ 49.Kc2 Qxe2+ 50.Kc1 Qxf3 as a winning line for Black. 45. Qxg5+ Kxg5 46. Kd2 Kh4 47. Ke1 g5 48. Kf2 g4
49. fxg4?? After the game, IM Karolyi noted that by leaving his pawn structure intact and waiting with his bishop White could have drawn: 49.Bd1 gxf3 50.Bc2!, and White has built an impenetrable fortress. His bishop would simply shuffle between c2 and d3, and Black would have no way of coming in. The text leads to a lost pawn endgame. 49. ... Bxg4 50. Bf3 Bxf3 51. Kxf3 Kg5 52. Ke2 Kg4 53. Kf2 f3 54. Ke3 f2! White resigns
21
Chapter 3: Win by Losing During the Vietnam War, the well-trained U.S. Army, aided by sophisticated helicopters and bombers, killed a million North Vietnamese guerillas while losing fewer than 60,000 men—a ratio of almost 17 to 1. Yet, the primitive and poorly-armed Vietnamese guerillas still managed to win the war. Why? Because they were willing to tolerate enormous casualties to achieve eventual victory. The same logic applies to chess. No matter how often you lose to GMs, you will beat one someday if you keep trying. The strongest player does not always win a chess game, just as the strongest armies do not always win wars. As amateurs, the fact is that we will lose to GMs most of the time—our playing skills are simply inferior. An amateur who practices chess 2 hours a day cannot hope to be a stronger player than a GM who practices 16 hours a day. At the same time, if we think about the law of probabilities, it is almost impossible for an amateur to play a hundred games against GMs without winning a single one. GMs are human, and humans sometimes make mistakes. Therefore, the number one thing you can do to increase your chances of beating a GM is by playing lots of them.
§ To use a simple example, let us assume that your rating is 2000, and you are playing a 2500strength GM. According to the FIDE handbook, a 500-point gap means that on average, you only have a 4% chance of beating the GM in any particular game. Yet, even if your per-game odds remain a meager 4%, you can still beat GMs as long as you keep trying. If you adopt the simple strategy of continuing to play against GMs until you finally beat one, you will realize that your cumulative chances of achieving an eventual victory increase with the number of games you play. Mathematically, it is almost impossible to lose 100 games in a row against GMs: Number of games against GMs 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 50 100
Probability of eventual victory 4.0% 7.8% 11.5% 15.1% 18.5% 33.5% 55.8% 87.0% 98.3%
Even if you win only a tiny fraction of your games against GMs, you can still fill up a book with lots of brilliant victories if you have played enough games against them. Moreover, because you have the power to analyze your games to avoid repeating your mistakes, you will get stronger with each game you play, meaning that your real chances are even higher than the above numbers would suggest!
22
§ Where do you find opportunities to play GMs? An excellent place to play GMs is over the Internet. On major servers such as ICC and Playchess, it is possible to find opportunities to play GMs. On the Net, there are many amateurs who regularly beat GMs regularly (I know a guy who once defeated Larry Christiansen). Their blitz ratings on the Internet Chess Club (ICC) often range between 2400 and 2600, even though their real USCF and FIDE ratings would probably be at least 400 points lower. If you have a high enough Internet rating, you can usually play rated blitz games against GMs for free. Or, if you are a lower-rated player, there are always plenty of GMs who will be willing to play games for a small fee, sometimes for as little as US$3 a game. Another place to find GMs is in open tournaments. Most of these events use the Swiss system for pairings, and if you are lucky, you might get to play a few GMs over the course of the event. For a reasonably strong expert or low-level master, this is often the case. However, if you are a class A to D player, your chances of playing a GM after the first few rounds tend to be somewhat more limited since the pairing system tends to match players with similar scores and GMs tend to have higher scores than amateurs. If you live in a large city, there will usually be plenty of famous GM visitors willing to play simultaneous exhibitions for a fee. For the vast majority of amateurs, the simultaneous exhibition represents the only way they will ever play elite GMs. One rarely finds Kasparov playing blitz randomly on the ICC. Although there is often a hefty price for the privilege of playing in a simultaneous exhibition, I believe that paying a few hundred dollars to play a world class player is not a bad deal. Finally, if you have the time and inclination, you could pay a GM to play a training match with you. The match could last perhaps 4-8 games, and he could analyze the games with you as part of a package deal. In this author’s opinion, training matches represent an excellent way to improve, and are especially encouraged if you have the money and energy to do so.
Type of game Real-life simultaneous exhibition
Private matches
Pros
Cons
Photo (and autograph) opportunities with Opportunities tend to be rare. Often requires famous GMs. Increased chances of upset amateur to pay a lot of money to participate. due to GM having to play many people Usually no postmortems. at once. training Opportunities for postmortem (and Requires initiative on the part of the socializing) with GM opponents after amateur to arrange. Sometimes requires game. Match often involves several amateur to pay a lot of money. games that one can learn from.
Over-the-board (OTB) games in open tournaments
Opportunities for postmortem (and Opportunities to play GMs often limited to socializing) with GM opponents after one or two games per tournament— game. Potential prize money or even matchups often depend on random pairings. media coverage of big upsets. Cannot choose GM opponent.
Internet blitz games and simuls
Extremely cheap, with unlimited opportunities to play a wide range of GMs, including famous ones.
23
Internet games are often not regarded as highly as OTB games, especially if played at fast time controls.
Chapter 4: Learn to Tolerate Difficult Positions Take it from me: every game you play against a GM is going to be difficult. No GM will ever give you a comfortable position if he can help it. Indeed, you will find that your position will always be under some threat or another—and may sometimes look almost losing. But the key to victory lies in resilience, and for amateurs to win, they need plenty of forbearance and a little luck. The following game was my first win against a GM. I’m not going to pretend that the win was well-deserved—few amateur victories are. But I believe that it illustrates some of the principles that I’m trying to make about amateur vs. GM games. First, a little background information. Before this game, I had played GM Barlov five times—and lost all five games. In each of the games we played, he gave me enormous difficulties, and our overall score reflects his vastly superior playing strength. But my point is this: We amateurs will lose most of our games against GMs because they are more sophisticated players than us. However, just because we lose most of the time does not mean that we will lose all the time. Amateurs can beat GMs because it is statistically impossible to lose infinitely.
GM Dragan Barlov - Chris Seck Internet Chess Club, 2006
1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bd7 I try to transpose the game into the main line French Defense (Fort Knox variation), which will normally be achieved after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7, followed by Bc6. Although theory considers that line to be slightly inferior for Black, I choose to that opening because I’m familiar with it. 5. Ne5 White refuses to transpose to the main line. Generally, GMs avoid the main lines to confuse amateurs. 5. ... Be7? Playing an offbeat line just paid off for my GM opponent. I should have played 5…Nc6, after which a likely continuation is 6.Nxd7 Qxd7, which is more or less equal after I castle queenside. 6. Qh5! Threatening checkmate. Black is now on the defensive.
24
6. ... g6 The unsightly 6…Nh6 would have been no better, because after 7.d4, White’s bishop would take the h6-knight, leaving me with doubled isolated pawns—and a huge advantage for White. It is interesting to note that although it’s been only 6 moves since the game started, I am already facing a weird position that doesn’t exist in most opening manuals. That’s the thing about playing GMs: You must be psychologically prepared to deal with unusual positions—and deal with the complexity as best as you can. 7. Qf3 Threatening checkmate again, with a hidden threat on the b7 pawn (which I didn’t see). 7. ... Nf6?? I play a terrible blunder. Necessary was the ugly 7…f5, which would have held on. One possible sequence would be 8.Ng5 Bxg5 9.Qxb7 Bf6 10.Qxa8 Bxe5 11.Qxa7, with a complicated, imbalanced position. 8. Ng5! Renewing the threats on f7. My GM opponent continues to play punishing moves. 8. ... O-O?? I blunder away the b7 pawn and a8 rook. Only 8…Qc8 would have minimized the bleeding. Even then, the position after 9.Ngxf7 is the stuff of most amateur nightmares. 9. Qxb7
25
9. ... Nd5 This is not the best move, but I try to make the best of a bad deal by putting my knight on an active square to create tactical counterchances. Amateurs should learn to keep positions complicated-- they give the GM more chances of going wrong. 10. Qxa8 A minor inaccuracy. Psychologically, this was probably the turning point of the game. Here, White’s best option is to take on f7: 10.Ngxf7 Rxf7 11.Nxf7 Kxf7 12.Qxa8. Black has no way of trapping the White queen. 10. ... Bxg5 11. a3 Stopping tricky moves like Nb4. 11. ... Qf6
12. d4? 26
My GM opponent starts to lose his way. Best was 12.Nxd7, which would simplify the position. Although White loses the right to castle after 12…Nxd7 13.Qxa7 Qe5+ 14.Kd1, the White king is perfectly safe and cannot be easily attacked. 12. ... Ba4? I should have played 12…Bxc1 13.Rxc1 Qf4 with counterplay. After White deals with the threat to his rook, I could play Qe4+ and then Nc6, with a discovered attack on the White queen, followed by the nasty Nxd4. Still, the position remains highly complicated, and my GM opponent plays another second-best move. 13. c4 13.Qxa7 was better. Although he would get an isolated d-pawn after 13…Bxc2 14.Bc4!, White would be able to safely castle and consolidate his position. 13. ... Bxc1 14. Rxc1 The alternative 14.cxd5 fails to 14…Qf4!, threatening mate on d2. 14. ... Qf4 15. Nd3 Qe4+
16. Be2?? Necessary was the counter-intuitive 16.Kd2, which leads to an unclear position because Black’s pieces are very active, although he has no checks in the short term. But my GM opponent was probably shaken by the sharp turn the game had taken. 16. ... Nc6! 17. Qb7 White would still be in deep trouble after 17.f3 Qe3, because the White queen is still under attack and Nxd4 is coming up. The rest of the game was a mop-up. 17. ... Nxd4 18. O-O Nxe2+ 19. Kh1 Nxc1 20. Nxc1 Qxc4. White forfeits on time.
27
Chapter 5: Pick an Amateur-Friendly Opening Against amateurs, most GMs play offbeat lines, creating weird positions to make their opponents think for themselves. Therefore, it is difficult to prepare specific opening lines against GMs. Yet, studying the openings is vital because no amateur wants to get whacked within the first 10 moves of the game. How do you deal with that problem? I believe that against GMs, it is important to prepare openings in greater breadth rather than depth. There is no point in preparing your favorite opening 20 moves deep if your GM opponent is likely to play an unfamiliar sideline on move 4. This means that for most amateurs, playing the most theoretical lines of the Sveshnikov Sicilian is impractical if you have no idea how to face “anti-Sicilians” like the Grand Prix Attack. At the club level, some of us might do better by playing an opening whose main lines are easier to reach, such as the Scandinavian Defense, where Black enters his main lines almost immediately after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5. Although IMs and GMs may prefer to develop complex opening repertoires, I believe that at the club level, it often pays to invest in simpler setups like the King’s Indian Attack, the Stonewall, the Colle System, the London System, or even the Trompowsky. For amateurs, using reversed openings can also be very useful. For example, I learnt to play the Dutch Defense (1.d4 f5) as Black, and the Bird Opening (1.f4) as White, allowing me to use similar setups with both colors in most of my games. Is it possible to beat GMs with openings like the Dutch and the Bird? Absolutely! I’ve beaten plenty of strong players with them. Equally important, however, is the sort of positions that your opening usually leads to. To me, the book value of the opening matters less than the fact that I get solid, playable positions with it. For example, I have played the Fort Knox variation of the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6) and scored several wins against IMs and GMs with it even though the book suggests it is inferior. On a practical level, most amateurs would do better to specialize in simpler opening systems that they can understand, rather than complex openings that they can’t understand. The following game, between a 2000-rated expert and a 2700-rated GM, demonstrates how far an amateur can go if he recognizes his limits and learns to work within them:
28
GM Anatoly Karpov - James Long Singapore, 1997 1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Be7(!)
Rather than playing a sharp opening like the Modern Benoni or the King’s Indian, Black plays the solid Queen’s Gambit Declined. Moreover, he is familiar with this system—he employs the 3…Be7 move-order instead of the 3…Nf6 move-order to avoid the more popular Exchange Variation (3…Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5), which often leads to difficult positions for Black. If you think your openings are sound, play them against everybody, especially GMs. 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bf4 Black has steered the opening into a solid line, most likely prepared at home. His next moves are natural—and good. An amateur should prefer a solid opening where his best moves are generally easy to find. 5. ... Nf6 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 c6 8. Qc2 Nbd7 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8
29
Black’s plan is to simply play a typical maneuver: Ne6, g6, Ng7, and an eventual Bf5. It is important to know the typical middlegame plans that arise after the opening. In the meantime, Karpov tries to arrange the traditional minority attack with b4-b5. 11. Bg3 Ne6 12. Ne5 g6 13. Rab1 a5 Black plays alertly. If Karpov is to carry out his plan of b4-b5, then, he must allow Black to open the a-file for his rook. 14. a3 Ng7 15. b4 axb4 16. axb4 Bf5 Black trades off his “bad” light-squared bishop. The position is at least equal now. 17. b5
17. ... c5 Through this accurate pawn move, Black shows a strong understanding of this middlegame. Although the d-pawn is soon isolated, it never becomes a major weakness, and Black succeeds in keeping the position balanced enough to draw comfortably. 18.dxc5 Bxc5 19.Nf3 Qe7 20.Be5 Red8 21.Ne2 Rac8 22.Qb3 Be4 23.Ned4 Bxd4 24.Qxd4 Ne6 25.Ne5 Nxd4 26.exd4 Qd6 27.Rfe1 Rc7 28.f3 Bxd3 29.Qxd3 Qb6 30.Qe3 Kg7 31.h4 Ra8 32.Re2 Ra4 33.Rd2 h5 34.Kh2 Qd6 35.Kh1 Qa3 36.Qxa3 Rxa3 ½-½
30
Final position after 36…Rxa3 The final position even looks somewhat better for Black, since he has control of both open files. By playing an amateur-friendly opening and staying alert, Black managed to play the best game of his life.
31
Chapter 6: Make Simultaneous Games Work for You In 1996, GM Garry Kasparov played a simultaneous exhibition in Jerusalem. On that day, the playing conditions were terrible for Kasparov, who simply couldn’t concentrate on playing good chess. He later complained, “Everybody was talking, everybody was walking around in the middle of the circle, giving out coffee, or sodas, or television cameras.” On the flip side, however, what was bad for the GM was good for the amateurs: Kasparov conceded four draws and lost three games, one of them to a 14-year old. While I certainly don’t suggest making life uncomfortable for your GM opponent, I do believe that simultaneous exhibitions tend to favor amateur players—it can be quite tiring for a GM to play against dozens of people at once. Aside from the physical effort required (i.e. standing and walking for long periods of time), simultaneous exhibitions favor amateurs in other important ways. In my mind, the largest disadvantage of simultaneous exhibitions is this: GMs can’t use their best opening theory. Why? That is because GMs must reserve their best opening discoveries for bigmoney matches against other GMs. They spend a lot of energy preparing their openings, and cannot afford to waste their best opening secrets against amateurs in low-profile games—once an opening novelty is used, it is no longer a secret. But how should a smart amateur exploit the fact that his GM opponent cannot “waste” his opening secrets in a simultaneous exhibition? The following incident might prove interesting: In 2003, Kasparov played a simultaneous exhibition in Chicago against 24 players. Believing that his opponents were weak class players, he played complex side-lines against most of them—and beat them easily because of their limited opening knowledge. But unknown to Kasparov, one of his opponents was a 2000-rated expert who had prepared his openings very thoroughly. The game went something like this:
GM Garry Kasparov - Neil Kazaross Chicago, 2003 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 At the amateur level, the Scandinavian is a good opening to play. Kasparov was slightly surprised when he saw this variation instead of the more common 2…Qxd5. But thinking that his opponent was a class A, B, or C player, Garry decided to play a slightly offbeat line of the Scandinavian—and wait for his opponent to go wrong. 3. Nf3 Nxd5 4. d4 g6 5. c4 Nb6 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. h3
32
Kasparov decides to deviate from the main line Scandinavian. The usual plan is 7.Be2, followed by kingside castling. Perhaps Kasparov assumed that his amateur opponent did not know the 7.h3 sideline and therefore decided to call his bluff. In his book The Scandinavian, GM John Emms writes of 7.h3: “Generally speaking h2-h3 is quite desirable, since it cuts out any annoying Bg4 pins. A tempo is a tempo, though, and this grants Black the opportunity to organize some serious counterplay involving an early e7-e5.” Unfortunately for Kasparov, his amateur opponent was familiar with the line—and continued to play out the standard equalizing moves… 7. ... O-O 8. Be3 Nc6 9. Qd2 e5 10. d5 Na5!
After Black’s accurate knight move, which harasses White’s c4-pawn, he threatens to follow up with f7-f5 and e5-e4, with plenty of active play down the a1-h8 diagonal. The bishop on g7 would turn into a monster. White still has options, but playing out this position would require Kasparov to dig deep into his secret opening knowledge—knowledge that he reserves for his fellow GMs, not lowly amateurs! 33
Kazaross writes that at this point, Kasparov “rather nervously asked me if I had a rating. I replied 2084 and he, not looking very happy, asked why I didn't write it down in front of the board next to my name. I replied that no one asked me to.” In response, Kasparov “stated that if he had known I [Kazaross] was rated that highly he would have played differently rather than getting into a very theoretical line.” In the end, both players cordially agreed to abort the game, and Kasparov, sensing the humor of the situation, wrote his opponent a flattering autograph: “To Neil Kazaross… never be shy of your chess strength. See you next time. G Kasparov” By exploiting the GM’s reluctance to play main-line openings against amateurs, this amateur enjoyed the once-in-a-lifetime distinction of making Kasparov blink. Is this not a satisfactory outcome?
34
Chapter 7: Exploit the Peculiarities of Internet Chess I believe that amateurs should take playing conditions into account when deciding when and where to play GMs. Every format of play—open tournaments, simultaneous exhibitions, internet games—have their unique peculiarities, and an amateur should take advantage of whatever opportunities these formats offer. In this chapter, I focus on internet blitz games because I believe that after simultaneous exhibitions, internet chess is the second-most reliable format for beating GMs. There are several important differences between internet chess and traditional over-the- board (OTB) games that can profoundly improve the amateur’s chances. First, since you cannot see your opponent, it removes a lot of psychological pressure and allows you to concentrate on making good moves. Second, while traditional blitz requires a quick hand, internet blitz merely requires a fast mouse. There is no knocking over of pieces and no nasty hand scrambles—everything just takes place within a tidy-looking 2D board. This makes it easier for amateurs to concentrate on the position without any distracting external movements. Third, and most importantly, there are plenty of practical blitz techniques that don’t work in OTB games, but which are terrific for beating GMs in internet chess. GMs tend to rely so heavily on their superior chess strength that they usually don’t need internet blitz techniques to win. But for amateurs, knowing such tactics can sometimes come in very handy. The following game is a good example of how one can win in online chess using tactics that would never work in an OTB game. To be honest, I won in a rather unattractive fashion, but the game does demonstrate how playing conditions can make a difference.
Chris Seck - GM Leif Ogaard Internet Chess Club, 2007 1. f4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 c6 7. c3 Bg4 8. Qc2 Nbd7 9. e4
35
The Bird Opening generally leads to simple middlegames that are never seen in top-level GM games. But for an amateur playing an online game, simple setups work well because the right moves come naturally. 9. ... dxe4 10. dxe4 Nc5 My GM opponent places his pieces on active squares, and prepares to connect his rooks. 11. Rd1 Qc7 12. e5 Nd5 13. h3 Bf5 14. Qe2 Rad8 15. Na3 Bd3 My GM opponent plays aggressively. I am forced to burn some thinking time to figure out the safest square for the queen. In internet blitz, aggressive play usually pays off because it forces the opponent to use up thinking time. 16. Qf2 16.Rxd3 is possible, but the position after 16…Nxd3 17.Qxd3 Nxf4, leading to the isolation of White’s e-pawn, is not to everybody’s liking—especially in a 5-minute online game like this one. 16. ... Ne4?! A dubious move. Objectively, the normal 16…Qb6 or 16…Qa5 is better. 17. Qe1 I didn’t like the look of 17.Qxa7 Be2 18.Re1 Nxg3, wrecking my kingside pawn structure. Black would then trade his bishop on f3 and retreat his knight to the f5 outpost. After my move, however, Black begins to spend a lot of time trying to navigate the complications, and soon ends up behind in time. 17. Qb6+? This check is questionable because after my reply, Black loses material due to his hanging pieces on d3 and e4. Preferable was the cold-blooded 17…Be2, where 18.Qxe2 Ndxc3! is interesting, while 18.Rxd5 cxd5 19.Qxe2 Nxg3 leads to a complicated position that, although objectively better for White, is difficult to handle in online blitz games. 18. Kh2 Qa6 By this point, my GM opponent had 2½ minutes left on his clock, while I had 3½. 19. c4 I force the issue. Black must concede two pieces for the rook. Still, the resulting position remains highly uncomfortable for me because my GM opponent gets to double his rooks on the dfile and place one of his rooks on d1—freezing my queenside. In internet blitz, a small material edge sometimes matters less than piece activity. 19. ... Nb6 20. Rxd3 Rxd3 21. Qxe4 Rd1 22. Qe2 Rfd8 23. Rb1 Na4
36
24. Nd2? This move looks like it’ll trap the d1-rook, but it’s actually a bad idea. The natural 24.Be3 was far better, removing some of Black’s threats. At this point, I had 2" left while the GM had 1½ ". 24. ... Nxb2! On the flip side, my GM opponent took almost a minute to find this move, reducing his time to about 25 seconds. Even though the position has grown some tactical opportunities for Black, I now threaten to win on time. 25. Bxb2? Given that I had more time, I should have thought a little more and played the cold 25.Rxb2!, where 25…Rxc1 26.Nc2! leads to a superior position for White. Now, however, Black gets a big counterattack and my position begins to look more difficult. However, his time shrinks to 12 seconds in the process. My time was still in excess of 60 seconds. 25. ... R1xd2 26. Qf3 R8d3 27. Qf1 Qa4
37
28. Kh1??(!) Although White’s move is technically a blunder, the GM is unable to immediately capture the g3 pawn because with only 12 seconds left, he has to make a “pre-move,” which wasn’t 28…Rxg3 because he didn’t expect the 28.Kh1 blunder. He only sees it after making his pre-move. In time trouble situations in internet blitz, your opponent’s information comes one move later than usual. Learn to exploit it. 28. ... e6? (pre-move) 29. Bc1??(!) Another unexpected move, albeit a technical blunder. Now, due to my opponent’s pre-move 29…Rxg3, my opponent belatedly captures the g3-pawn—something he should have played one move earlier. But his rook is hanging. 29. ... Rxg3?? (pre-move) 29…Rd1 would have won material. But it is hard to instantly spot these moves with five seconds remaining on your clock. 30. Bxd2 Qxa3 31. Rb3 31.Kh2 would have done the trick, but this is a shocking interference move that stuns the opponent and negates his ability to play “pre-moves.” It wins in this online chess situation since my opponent had only 3 seconds left. 31. ... Rxb3 32. axb3 Black forfeits on time A silly little game. It’s not exactly how a Kasparov would win, but for an amateur playing online blitz, it worked just fine. At any rate, the final position still looks better for White.
38
Chapter 8: Study Your Opponent’s Games Generally, most class players, experts, and even low-level masters have precious few games available on databases to be studied. Even if an amateur’s games are represented on a database, chances are that they will be too few in number to offer the GM any real clues on his opponent’s openings or style. As a rule, the GM usually knows very little about his amateur opponent sitting across the board. Sometimes, the amateur’s rating might not even be available—or accurate. 1 On the flip side, any GM would have hundreds (if not thousands) of games listed in databases. This makes it easier for an amateur to prepare for his opponent. You can find out what sort of openings he usually plays. This allows you to figure out during a game whether your GM opponent is playing his favorite lines—or merely experimenting with new ones. The following game shows what an amateur can do with the information gap.
GM Anatoly Karpov - Yip Fong Ling Singapore, 1997
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 According to the databases, Karpov had played almost 1,200 games as White from 1967 to 1997. However, of this number, he had played the White side of the Scandinavian Defense in only six official tournament games. Moreover, of that number, only three featured the 3.Qa5 variation. Sometimes, it pays to specialize in a sound, but unfashionable opening that the GM doesn’t often face. Black came well-prepared to face Karpov in this opening. In contrast, Karpov could not have prepared for his amateur opponent even if he wanted to. How many games by Ms Yip would exist in his databases? 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O Black’s preparation has already started to reap dividends. While kingside castling is natural for White, it is not considered the most critical continuation. White normally plays 7.Bd2 and castles queenside. 7. ... Bd6 Normally, Black plays the dark-squared bishop to b4. The text leads to a slightly passive, but solid position—exactly what Black was aiming for. 8. Bd2 Karpov threatens either Ne4 or Nb5, winning the two bishops. Black lets him. 1
Personally, I think that on occasion, it might be a smart idea for an amateur to remain low-rated or even unrated— some GMs assume that unrated players are beginners, which is not always a good assumption to make! 39
8. ... c6 9. Nb5 Qd8 10. Nxd6+ Qxd6 11. c3 O-O
This middlegame position is probably better for White due to his possession of the two bishops. But for this modest price, Black has emerged from the opening with a solid position—not a bad achievement when your opponent is Anatoly Karpov! Moreover, Black has a simple, natural plan of preparing the traditional c5 pawn break. A slightly inferior, but solid position is often easier to handle than a dynamically equal, but unclear one. 12. Re1 Nbd7 13. h3 Qc7 14. Qe2 c5 15. Bg5 In the meantime, White places his pieces on active squares. 15. ... h6 16. Bh4 Nh5 A typical maneuver. Black is familiar with this opening, and she knows exactly what to do. Karpov, being somewhat less familiar with this line than most other openings, places his pieces on active squares. However, it isn’t easy for him to find a straightforward plan. 17. Ne5 Nf4 This move is fine, although it would have been better to exchange on e5 first: 17…Nxe5 18.dxe5 Nf4 19. Qe3 Ng6 20.Bg3. In the resulting position, White’s darksquared bishop would be relatively bad, and the position would be approximately equal. 18. Qf3 Ng6 19. Nxg6 Bxg6 20. Bg3 Qc8 20…Qb6 would have been more active, attacking the b2-pawn and forcing White to play either 21.b3 or 21.Qe2. But Black’s move is still solid and acceptable. 21. Rad1 Nb6 22. Bf1 c4 This position is more comfortable for Karpov due to his slightly more active pieces, especially the rooks. Black’s position is still solid, however, and he should be able to hold. It isn’t clear what White’s plan should be. He’s managed to place his pieces on comfortable squares—so
40
now what? At this point, Karpov pushes his h-pawn to sharpen the game, but this only weakens his kingside and allows Black to achieve an equal position. 23. h4 Nd5 24. h5 Bf5
Black is already equal and has a solid position. Some missteps caused her to land in a slightly passive position, but she eventually drew by Move 43.
41
Chapter 9: Sometimes, You Get Underestimated GMs are accustomed to playing other GMs. They reserve their best weapons for other GMs. They don’t play their best chess against amateurs because they usually don’t need to. Most of the time, playing second-best moves is enough to beat amateurs. GMs usually take their opponents fairly seriously—they rarely take their opponents so lightly as to make big blunders. However, once in a while, a careless GM might play particularly flamboyant (and bad) moves against his amateur opponent. For example, an amateur might play the first few moves badly, causing the GM to feel overconfident—so he begins dreaming about playing a beautiful-looking, but unsound attack. The following classic example demonstrates that even world champions are not immune to this psychological fallacy:
Emanuel Lasker - NN London, 1908 1. c4 d5?! This is a questionable move, allowing White to win both a central majority and an extra tempo on the queen. “ My opponent must be a beginner,” Lasker probably thought to himself. 2. cxd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. d4 Nf6 5. e4 e6 6. Nf3 Nc6? This is a beginner’s move. Black blocks his c-pawn, making it difficult to generate any pawn breaks. 7. Bd3 Be7
Thus far, Black has played the opening in lackluster fashion, allowing White to build a classical e4-d4 pawn center. Here, White can maintain a nice advantage by simply castling and 42
moving his pieces to active squares, and connecting his rooks. In the meantime, Black will have trouble completing his development or even connecting his rooks. Lasker has a superior position. But underestimating his weaker opponent, he embarks on a highly questionable attack—something he would never have played against a strong contemporary like Tarrasch or Capablanca. Sometimes, when an unknown amateur is forced into a bad position, the GM gets lured into a false sense of complacency. 8. h4 Ng4 9. Ng5? But this move, leaving the d4-pawn undefended, is wrong. White should have played something safer, like 9.Bb5 followed by 10.Qe2, for instance. 9. ... e5? Black could have taken the pawn: 9…Qxd4 10.0-0 Nge5 with a clear advantage, for instance. All the same, Lasker quickly falls into an inferior position, as the amateur suddenly stops making beginner moves. 10. d5 Nd4 11. f3 h6
12. Nxf7? Objectively speaking, the best course was 12.fxg4 hxg5 13.h5, leading to an inferior, but playable position for White. But in this difficult position, Lasker decides to simply lash out. Maybe he was still hoping for a glorious victory after his opponent makes a mistake? 12. ... Bxh4+! 13. Kf1 Kxf7 14. fxg4 The best move was probably 14.Rxh4. But the position after 14…Qxh4 15.fxg4 Bxg4 is lost for White anyway. 14. ... Qf6+ White resigns. 43
Do GMs underestimate their opponents often? Rarely, but it sometimes happens. Even the famously solid Capablanca was occasionally capable of playing far below his normal level against amateurs:
J.R. Capablanca - Koksal Prague, 1911 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Be7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bd3 Bd7 7.h3 Nc6 8.Nxc6 Bxc6 9.O-O O-O 10.f4 Re8 11.f5? d5 12.e5? Bc5+ 13.Kh1 Rxe5 14.Bf4 Re8 15.Qd2 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Be2 e3 18.Qc3 Qd2 19.Qxd2 exd2 20.Bd3 Rad8 21.Rfd1 Rd4 22.Bxd2 Rxd3 23.cxd3 Re2 24.d4?? Bxg2+ 25.Kh2 Bc6+ 26.Kg1 Bxd4+ 27.Kf1 Bb5 28.Bc3 Rxb2+ 0-1
44
Chapter 10: How to Beat Your Computer In this final chapter, I have decided to give my two cents worth on beating computers. Although computers don’t have titles, they beat GMs most of the time, are frequently rated above 2500, and are therefore worthy opponents to beat. In his book, The Road to Chess Improvement, GM Alex Yermolinsky suggests that humans should be open to playing gambits and engaging in tactical melees against computers. In doing so, he includes a couple of games where he beat Fritz 4 using his strategy. While I don’t argue with what he does (one can’t argue with success), I don’t see the average amateur outsmarting the computer through raw tactical play. In my opinion, for most amateurs, the traditional anti-computer strategies of closing the position and aiming for simple endgames still work far better than a more tactical approach. Why endgames? Although most amateurs (including myself) are poor endgame players, computers tend to be even worse—especially the older programs. When I was in the military, I spent a lot of my time playing with my Fritz 5. For a while, I got beaten the vast majority of the time. After a few hundred games, however, I discovered almost by accident that there were certain endgame positions that were beyond Fritz’s calculating power. One of these endings came about in the White side of the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4.
With the queens off the board, I would simply complete my development, trade off all the pieces (just double the rooks on the d-file and slowly swap off the minor pieces). To be sure, any human GM playing Black would never allow the exchanges, but Fritz frequently did, and usually wound up with a pawn endgame that looked something like this:
45
Although material is equal, the endgame is actually winning for White because of his superior pawn structure—White has a kingside pawn majority, while Black cannot create a passed pawn on the queenside due to his doubled pawns. I would create a passed pawn on the kingside, and then simply march my king to the queenside to chomp off the Black pawns—a 20-move process that was beyond Fritz’s calculating powers. I won dozens of games against Fritz in this simple fashion before the computer began playing Sicilians instead (Fritz 5 stops playing an opening once it loses several times with it). I then started losing lots of games again. To be sure, this simple strategy of achieving superior endgames is unlikely to work in the long run against the newest machines. A few years ago, computer engineer Ken Thompson designed an “endgame CD” so that computers would be able to play perfect moves in any endgame with six pieces or less. As the scope of these endgame CDs expand, computers will become less and less likely to allow amateurs to lead them into unfavorable endgames. For the time being, however, the time-honored strategy of shooting for simple endgames is probably good advice for amateurs.
§ Closing the position is another important method of beating computers. Against the machines, most amateurs would probably score better with the Stonewall than in Open Sicilians. Although computers are becoming increasingly good at playing in closed positions, there are still a few secret opening lines where one can defeat a computer by locking up the position. This is one of them:
Fritz 5 - Chris Seck 60 minute game, 2004
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6
46
The King’s Indian Defense is often considered a sharp, tactical opening. However, I find that it frequently leads to closed positions that computers, especially the older ones, are largely unsuited to. 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 The classical 9.Ne1 variation is a good line and has a very respectable reputation. But nowadays, many human GMs would play the “Bayonet variation” with 9.b4, which is sharper than the text. The next few moves are still within the book. 9. ... Nd7 10. f3 f5 11. Be3 f4 12. Bf2 g5 13. a4 Rf6 The beginning of a crafty sequence of moves: Rf8-f6-h6, Nd7-f6, and Qd8-e8-h5, which lead to a strong attack. White’s only defense at that point would be h2-h3, but then Black has the nasty Bxh3!, where his threats are irresistible. Interestingly, this plan would be obvious to a human GM, who would see the nasty threats and take appropriate measures to stop it. But to a computer, which has no imagination, the checkmate threat remains outside its enormous calculating power. 14. a5 a6 I decide to slow Fritz’s queenside advance, and to prevent any future tricks with Nb5 after my queen moves to e8.
47
15. Na4 The computer’s moves have been okay so far. But if White wanted to stop my planned Rh6Nf6-Qe8-Qh5 sequence, one possibility would have been GM Alexei Shirov’s idea of the immediate 15.g4, which would at least force Black to think of a different plan of attack. Although Black can capture the pawn en passant, the sequence is not dangerous because White’s king is robustly defended: 15…fxg3 16.hxg3, followed by Ne1-g2-e3, Kg2, and possibly an eventual Rh1. However, Fritz cannot see what a human GM can. Therefore, it continues to advance on the queenside, while I slowly tighten the noose. 15. ... Qe8 16. b4? Fritz still evaluates the position as slightly better for White. But here, it should have played 16.g4 instead, to stop the upcoming threats. For example, the line 16.g4 fxg3 17.hxg3 Rh6 18.g4! is still playable for White. 16. ... Rh6 17. h3? The computer finally sees the upcoming Qh5 and takes steps to defend against it. But White’s pieces are not well-placed to defend the king. At this point, it is too late to defend with g2-g4. However, White could still try 17.Kh1 with the idea of Bg1, defending his kingside. However, moving your king onto the same file as the enemy rook rarely comes naturally to anyone, not even Fritz. 17. ... Nf6
48
18. c5?? I consider White to be quite lost after this move. At this point, 18.Kh2 was probably the only move that would save the game, with the idea of playing Rh1, indirectly defending the h-pawn. After 18.Kh2, a possible sequence would be 18…Qh5 19.Rh1 g4 20.fxg4 Nxg4+ 21.Kg1 Nxf2 22.Bxh5 Nxd1 23.Bxd1, where White’s position is still somewhat playable. Unfortunately, Fritz still doesn’t see it! 18. ... Qh5 After this move, the computer suddenly realizes what is going on. But it is too late to prevent the mate threat. Black has been preparing the final blow for the last 6 moves, and the escape routes have already been closed. 19. cxd6 Bxh3! 20. Bb6 When computers play moves like these, you know they’ve lost. But even 20.dxe7 would not have worked because of 20…Bxg2! and the decisive entrance of the black queen. Fritz suggests one grim sequence, similar to the one that happens in this game: 21.Bh4 Qxh4 22.Nxg2 Qh2+ 23.Kf2 Qg3+ 24.Kg1 Rh2 25.e8(Q)+ Rxe8 26.Rf2 Qh3 27.Nxf4 Rh1 mate. The rest of the game was quite straightforward, even for me: 20. ... Bxg2! 21. Nxg2 Qh2+ 22. Kf2 Qg3+ 23. Kg1 Rh2! 24. Rf2 Qh3 25. dxe7 Rh1 mate
49
Epilogue
I am writing this book as an amateur, and I hope that the reader will view me as just this: a club player who likes to help other club players. I recognized early on that as an amateur, there are some limits to what I could achieve in chess. Work, school, relationships, religion, and other interests all prevent us from becoming the best chess players we can possibly be. At the same time, however, by recognizing that we are amateurs and accepting our limitations, we can all learn to play better chess. I encourage you to keep learning. Practice against your computer, read chess books, and watch chess videos. Keep analyzing your games so that you’ll keep improving. Most importantly, keep playing lots of GMs, because if you keep trying, you never know when you might draw—or beat—a GM. It is almost a tautology that the most reliable way to beat a GM is to become one yourself. In the meantime however, while we’re still amateurs, I hope some of the ideas in this book will work for you as well as they did for me! Email me to tell me what you think. I can be reached at this address:
[email protected].
50
